Brant Boucher, in his letter “Scientific consensus” (The Hill Times, Aug. 6, 2007), seems to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC documents represents “scientific consensus.” Nothing could be further than the truth!

As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters (The Hill Times, May 28, 2007). I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of GHG-induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.

I would further politely ask Mr. Boucher to do a simple reality check regarding the earth’s temperature change. Since mid-1998, the earth’s mean temperature as a whole has not increased at all, despite billions of tonnes of human-added CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. Read more here.

My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.  Read more here.

Global warming? To understand the future, we must first understand the past. Whether you believe in global warming or not, you must own this workbook! This volume details the structure of the Macrophysical Climate Model (MCM), its origin, and how to apply it to your specific area(s)of interest. The MCM produces site-specific, 100-year resolution, models of the past monthly climate of an area (precipitation, temperature, evaporation, snowfall, precipitation intensity, and more). This workbook includes all you need to know to produce models for your specific area(s) of interest with the user-friendly model templates on the CD. There is also a section of case study applications of model results to understanding past climates and cultures.

The workbook will also be used at the upcoming Paleoclimate Workshop at the Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, SD, September 22-25, 2007. Dr. Bryson will be giving a public lecture the evening of the 22nd.  See more here.

The evidence for a major climate shift since the mid 1970s is quite real. California indices of rainfall and temperature have both shown an increasing trend since 1975.

Physical changes in Earth weather systems that accompany the 1975 weather trend changes include the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) index, a 1975 change in the Atmospheric Angular Momentum (AAM) index and a 1940 increase in solar irradiance. Note: a detailed discussion of these factors and the contamination by urbanization follows in this excellent analysis.

The preservation and protection of temperature measuring sites needs to be considered. The future of temperature measurement in urban regions is fast being modified by urban growth. Waste heat and environmental changes are underway at the present time. A question is; at what distance from a waste heat source is the temperature measurements being modified and how much? A monitoring program for temperatures in areas free of land use change and waste heat is much needed. Perhaps areas dedicated to no development like parks would be ideal monitoring sites for temperature measuring. Read full analysis here.

"I observed recently that Hansen’s GISS series contains an apparent error in which Hansen switched the source of GISS raw from USHCN adjusted to GHCN for all values January 2000 and later. I’ve collated GISS raw minus USHCN adjusted for all USHCN sites.

Here is a graph showing the difference between GISS raw and USHCN adjusted by month (with a smooth) for unlit stations (which are said to define the trends).

The step in January 2000 is clearly visible and results in an erroneous upward step of about 0.18-0.19 deg C. in the average of all unlit stations. I presume that a corresponding error would be carried forward into the final GISS estimate of US lower 48 temperature and that this widely used estimate would be incorrect by a corresponding amount. The 2000s are warm in this record with or without this erroneous step, but this is a non-negligible error relative to (say) the amounts contested in the satellite record disputes.”

However GHCN did not use the same adjustments, and this introduced an upward step in the US average for all years after 2000. Hansen and colleagues didn’t notice until Steve asked them for an explanation. They have now amended their web site and acknowledged Steve’s contribution .

GISS estimated that the error added 0.15 C to each year in the US after 2000. Steve estimated 0.18-0.19 C, but they have refused his request for code to verify their claim. That of course will change the rankings of the recent years.

Icecap note: The GHCN data and approach used by GISS and soon by USHCN is itself seriously flawed. I and others believe if the global data were properly adjusted for urbanization and station siting and land use change issues were addressed, what would emerge is a cyclical pattern of rises and falls with much less of any background trend. The whole GW movement is to some degree riding the coattails of the global increase in population and the associated urban heat island effect and other local factors.